ANDRE WALKER BONHEUR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant's sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines was reversed because those guidelines were invalidated by Heggs v. State, and the offense fell within the window period for challenging them under Trapp v. State.
A sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing under the pre-1995 guidelines because Chapter 95-184 violated the Florida Constitution's single-subject requirement and the offense occurred within the permissible window period for challenge.
[1] A sentence imposed under Chapter 95-184 (1995 sentencing guidelines) must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing under prior guidelines when the underlying off…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was sentenced pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines for an offense occurring on May 21, 1997. The trial court also revoked his communit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Single Subject Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant properly contends that he was sentenced pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines and that those guidelines were invalidated by Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000) (holding that Chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, enacting the 1995 sentencing guidelines, violated the single-subject requirement of the Florida Constitution). The underlying offense in this case occurred on May 21, 1997, within the window period as determined by the Florida Supreme Court in Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000)(holding that the window period for challenging Chapter 95-184 closed on May 24, 1997). Therefore, this cause is reversed and remanded for resentencing under the guidelines in effect prior to the enactment of Chapter 95-184.
Additionally, on remand, the trial court should correct the written order revoking the defendant’s community control so that it reflects the trial court’s oral pronouncements 1
Reversed and remanded.
. In its oral pronouncements, the trial court found the defendant in violation of his com-munily control for being absent from his approved residence, for resisting an officer without violence, and for obstruction of justice. The trial court specifically elected not to find the defendant in violation for allegedly failing to pay court or supervision costs. Nevertheless, the order of revocation of community control reflects all of these as the grounds for the revocation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)